Liberals celebrating the future in which women will be 60 percent of students in higher education

Robert B. writes:

While visiting an elderly friend at the hospital, I happened upon the March 12th issue of The New Yorker. I think it would be fun for you to deconstruct their main editorial comment.

If you can stomach more of such tripe, then you can read the current issue’s commentary:

By 2019, if current trends continue, [women] will make up fifty-nine per cent of total undergraduate enrollment, and sixty-one per cent of those enrolled in graduate programs. This is an economic and educational order predicated on the freedom of women, married and unmarried, to protect their own health and to decide when they’re going to have children.

Umm, no, I would say it’s mostly due to unrestrained hatred and resulting discrimination against white males.

LA replies:

I agree with Robert. What else can explain liberals celebrating the fact of women becoming a large majority of the students in higher institutions of learning? Clearly this is no longer about women’s equality. It is about advancing the power and importance of women at whatever cost—at whatever cost to men, at whatever cost to children, at whatever cost to society, at whatever cost to the human good. As we have also seen with the insane birth control mandate, all that liberals now care about, all that they now seek, is the empowerment, without any defined limit, of their favored groups, and the disparagement and displacement of whoever stands in the way of that empowerment.

- end of initial entry -

Dan R. writes:

A society that ignores testosterone does so at its own peril, both in the sacrifice of its beneficent effects and the dangers of unattached men. In this case the issue is attachment to a productive career, which men will be more and more shut off from. How much further down the road toward feminist utopia will it be before women decide that they need a man just “like a fish needs a bicycle?” I’m reminded of an early book by George Gilder, Naked Nomads, detailing the plight of unattached men. There is really little to rejoice about, except in the myopic feminist mind.

Debra C. writes:

Last night I was watching the 1954 film The High and the Mighty starring John Wayne, Claire Trevor, and Robert Stack. There’s a scene that takes place in the operation room, the communications hub, where workers are abuzz dealing with the logistics of trying to avert a disaster in the sea, as the San Francisco-bound flight from Honolulu is low on fuel (due to an engine fire) and may have to ditch in the drink, so to speak.

What that has to do with this thread is that I was struck by the fact of the all-male, 15 or more men, staff that was handling the coordination and communications. The thoughts running through my mind went like this: these men (represented on the screen) were probably all being paid a living wage that supported not only themselves but their wives and children at home. They likely had only one car (I know my family had only one car in 1954). The children at home were being raised by the mother who bore them and loved them, like no day-care provider could ever do. And they were being taught traditional values. And today, that scene—if a remake of the film were produced—would have a mostly female cast, reflective of our society’s determined goal of placing the acquisition of things above the acquisition of virtue, honor, and stable families.

What a wonderful generation in which to be raised—until the 1960’s, that is, when my teenage years were deeply marred by the moral confusion and dysfunction that had finally flowered with the hippie generation, following years of assault on our culture by Communists and liberals in academia and government.

A society whose love of mammon is so deeply rooted is easy prey to the lies of the left. Volumes could be written—this blog itself constitutes many volumes of material on the subject—that elucidate the decline of a people who throw God out and replace him with the god of self. Liberalism, leftism, at its core is a fist in the face of God. The coming 60 percent of higher-ed students who will be women is a number to be mourned, not lauded.

Personally, I’m glad that certain non-maternal and highly gifted women have the opportunity to enjoy higher-learning and professional pursuits—especially if these pursuits are in the sciences.

But we here at VFR know—at least I think we do—that the progressive project cannot proceed apace unless women are pushed out of the home and indoctrinated at public institutions into the Marxist mindset. That’s my take, and I stand by it.